Spey-Fishery-Board-Annual-Report-2013-Web

Recommendations

Info

In recent years the focus has been on mitigation stocking. Whilst mitigation stocking is generally consideredacceptable, providing best practice is followed, there is now considerable resistance to stocking aboveimpassable waterfalls. The Wildlife and Natural Environment Act has now been fully implemented, whichmakes it an offence to move a species out-with its natural range. The opportunities for mitigation stocking onthe Spey are limited; it is estimated that the proportion of the catchment rendered inaccessible to migratory fishis less than 1%, a figure that is slowly reducing as more and more barriers are removed. Hence, we are now in asituation where we have a relatively small hatchery operation, focused on mitigation stocking, mainly in smalltributaries in the middle and lower catchment.There is little point in stocking areas where fish are naturally present. Furthermore, with new research indicatingthat when stocked fish inter-breed with wild fish, their reproductive capacity is reduced, our stocking may bepotentially harmful rather than beneficial.The identification of areas perceived to be underutilised can be difficult and may lead to incorrect conclusionsbeing drawn. There are areas of the Spey catchment which are likely to have always supported only lowdensities of fish, such as high altitude areas and those with granite geology that support only low productivity,and so to try to improve fish populations in these areas by stocking is unlikely to be productive. Salmon do usethese areas in the Spey (we have a strong population of salmon spawning at over 500m (1640ft) altitude, up toover 600m (2130ft), but these should be viewed as highly specialised and adapted fish that spawn early, hatchlate and concentrate their growth in the relatively short summer. Highly adapted populations such as these areparticularly susceptible to disruption, be that climate or habitat change, or the introduction of stocked fish fromoutwith that particular area.A more sustainable strategy, that will benefit the whole river, is to conserve stocks to ensure there are adequatefish available to spawn, and to ensure that the habitat in the nursery areas is as good as possible, so as topromote enhanced survival through the parr and ultimately smolt stages of the salmon life cycle.3.3.1 Stocking PolicyIn 2011, the Board had accepted the recommendations of the Stocking Sub-Group of the Spey FoundationCommittee, that stocking take place in the following areas by order of priority:1. Above man-made obstacles.2. Above partly-accessible waterfalls, but only if appropriate broodstock was available.3. In areas of poor juvenile density, although a clear reason for doing so needed to be demonstrated e.g.after a natural disaster.4. Above the natural reach/distribution. This was the least-favoured and it was recommended that suchlocations should be avoided and only used where subsequent electrofishing showed that smoltproduction was likely to be successful.The Spey Foundation Committee had also recommended to the Board that henceforth a far more targetedapproach to stocking, with a reduced production that could be effectively monitored, should be undertaken. Thisfollowed consideration of the extensive programme of electrofishing that had been undertaken in June and July32
of that year, together with the results of the genetic analysis project which had provided an indication of thehatcheries’ contribution to the rod fishery. The Board had previously decided to repeat the stocking of autumnparr, formerly undertaken in 2011, and to monitor their progress. It had also decided that the genetic research,which had provided an initial indication of our hatcheries’ contribution to the rod fishery, needed to be enhancedand that the public needed to be made aware of the extensive research undertaken by the Spey Board andelsewhere. The results of this enhanced genetic research are reported in section 3.4.Further to this, another comprehensive programme of electro-fishing was undertaken by the Board during 2013,initially to monitor its stocking in 2012 and to confirm the stocking locations for 2013 (see Table 2 below). Toassist future monitoring, the Ghillies coordinated the fin-clipping of 40,000 autumn parr for stocking during2013, so that hatchery-reared fish could be more readily identified. The Board is grateful to all of the Ghilliesand Proprietors who took part in this, which highlighted the value of public engagement in our work.The Spey Foundation Committee and the Board also had to consider the stocking policy and requirement for2014 (see Table 3 below). To enable this, the Board reinstated its Stocking Sub-Committee.The Sub-Committee considered the results from the 2013 electro-fishing, together with the findings from thesubsequent genetic analysis. Cognisant that fishery management is a combination of sound science, politics andcommon sense, it also took into account the beneficial aspects of stocking, which include education and publicengagement. In so doing, it recommended that the Spey Board should retain the operation of the hatchery, atbroadly similar levels to the current production, for the next five years.The Sub-Committee’s findings were presented to and endorsed by both the Spey Foundation Committee and theBoard. Thereafter, the Board applied for a licence from the Scottish Government to catch and hold broodstockoutside the Salmon fishing season. By the nature of the SAC-designation of the River Spey, this application alsorequired an Appropriate Assessment. The Board was granted a licence from the Scottish Government for thecollection of broodstock and this began in October, once the 2013 stocking had been completed.The SFB Stocking Policy remains progressive and will continue to be subject to review in light of newlegislation, our ongoing monitoring and advances in scientific research.Above: Sir Edward Mountain and Ghillie Sandy Smith fin-clipping at Sandbank Hatchery. The Ghillies co-ordinated the finclippingof 40,000 autumn parr for stocking during 2013. (Photo: Steve Brand)33
Page 1: ANNUAL REPORT2013www.speyfisheryboa
Page 7 and 8: Chairman’s ForewordThe numbers of
Page 9 and 10: that all the burden of the Manageme
Page 11 and 12: - a duty to hold at least one publi
Page 13 and 14: Figure 2. The River Spey catchment
Page 16 and 17: Figure 3: Scottish & Southern Energ
Page 18 and 19: The primary compensation flow (abov
Page 20 and 21: Spey Salmon Catch 1952 to 201315000
Page 22 and 23: 2.2 Sea Trout CatchesThe 2013 decla
Page 24 and 25: 2.3 Salmon Conservation PolicyAs pa
Page 26 and 27: Catches have not been encouraging i
Page 28 and 29: Part 3Management Report3.1 Spey Cat
Page 30 and 31: the Initiative’s work at a recept
Page 34 and 35: Table 2. Spey Fishery Board Stockin
Page 36 and 37: catchment (particularly in the Trui
Page 38 and 39: There were at least two other pollu
Page 40 and 41: In 2013 the SFB continued counting
Page 42 and 43: A total of eleven patrols along our
Page 44 and 45: Part 4Spey Foundation Report4.1 Juv
Page 46 and 47: Rather than focussing on the result
Page 48 and 49: 2012DulnainNethyDruieSpey Dam2014Fi
Page 50 and 51: capable of producing similar smolt
Page 52 and 53: Table 10: Results from the River Tr
Page 54 and 55: 4.7 Invertebrate SamplingDuring 201
Page 56 and 57: Above: Pupils from Aberlour House9t
Page 58 and 59: as well as the habitat enhancement
Page 60 and 61: Spey Fishery Board Financial Summar
Page 62 and 63: Notes62

Spey-Fishery-Board-Annual-Report-2013-Web

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?